Skiers and snowboarders go down the Homerun trail at Park City Mountain Resort in November 2013. (Salt Lake Tribune file)

As a Utah district court judge prepares to sign an order that would evict Powdr Corp. from a majority of the terrain at its flagship Park City Mountain Resort, Powdr is pleading and promising a “catastrophic” blow to the local economy if evicted.

The 20-year operator of Park City Mountain Resort has asked the judge – who has already ruled against Powdr on several critical points in the high profile lease dispute – to delay the eviction order. It’s asking the judge to postpone enforcement of the order until the company appeals the judge’s May decision that Powdr’s lease to use a majority of the land beneath its flagship resort had expired when it failed to file lease renewal paperwork with landowner Talisker Corp. in 2011. The resort operator also wants the judge to delay payment of any back rent and restitution, which Talisker says is at least $7.7 million plus damages for loss of use, until after final hearings and the appeal process.

Talisker wants Vail Resorts to take over Park City Mountain Resort. Vail Resorts in 2013 leased Talisker’s neighboring Canyons ski area. That deal had Vail Resorts handling the lease litigation with Powdr on the promise that it would take over the Park City Mountain Resort land if Talisker emerged victorious.

Powdr, which includes Colorado’s Copper Mountain in its portfolio of nine resorts in six states, detailed its plans to yank chairlifts if evicted.

The operator said it would spend $4 million over 33 weeks to remove all snowmaking equipment, restaurant furniture, maintenance equipment and towers, cables and drives for 12 chairlifts on the disputed land. If it removed all its equipment, Vail would not have time to install the needed infrastructure to keep Park City Mountain Resort open next season, Powdr told the judge.

Powdr would offer limited operations on the lower portion of the mountain for the winter. It would spend close to $1.8 million shortening or realigning three chairlifts and launching development of its Woodward Park City action sports training facility at the base, according to a declaration by Park City Mountain Resort president and general manager Jenni Smith. Smith told the judge that if her resort won its appeal, it would spend $7.3 million to reinstall chairlifts and reverse chairlift modifications at the base area.

Powdr owner John Cumming has said repeatedly he would not allow skiers to pass through Powdr-owned base lands to access a Vail-run resort.

Without Powdr., Park City would lose thousands of jobs and “hundreds of millions of dollars that PCMR contributed to the Utah tourism economy will also be lost or threatened,” reads the motion filed last week. If 25 percent of the out-of-state skier days at Park City Mountain Resort were lost to another state because of a closure or downsizing of the resort, Powdr estimated 1,100 workers would lose their jobs and the region would lose $100 million in economic activity.

John Lund, the attorney representing Vail and Talisker in the dispute, said the motion was heavy with “inflammatory rhetoric.”
The upcoming hearings and potential eviction order are “simply the logical next step” following the May 21 ruling in favor of Talisker and Vail, Lund said.

He urged Cumming to tell the community of Park City that he would not block skiers from accessing the rest of the ski area, even if it plans to develop its Woodward terrain park facility.

“There is no doubt that any activity the Cummings are planning on that site will be more successful if guests can also choose a more comprehensive experience,” Lund said. “The Cummings’ suggestion that they would prevent skiers and riders from accessing the upper mountain terrain is nothing more than a crude negotiating tactic or pure spite. And neither has a role in this dialogue.”

Why in the world would any corporation want to cripple the local economy of a town in its industry? “Powdr estimated 1,100 workers would lose their jobs and the region would lose $100 million in economic activity.”

What other resort would EVER want to work with Powdr again if there’s a chance it would negatively impact the local economy?

nwb

it’s funny that you think Talsker is trying to work with them. Talsker wanted a newer and more profitable arrangement (and good for them for that), and they seized on a technicality with the lease renewal to get it done. they aren’t working with Powdr, so why should Powdr bend over?

denverdrew

Because they didn’t fulfill the terms of the lease renewal by filing the proper paperwork before the deadline. They have no leverage.

“Park City Mountain Resort’s owner Powdr Corp. mistakenly failed to send a letter by the deadline in March 2011 to renew its lease for another 20 years, allowing the lease dating back to the 1970s to lapse, according to the court’s decision.”

Now the true colors of powder corp come out. They basically went on record saying the would be deliberately vengeful if they don’t get their way. This is on par with ripping out the copper plumbing of a home that is getting foreclosed on. Low class.

nwb

why would they leave millions of dollars of equipment they own and donate it to a company that is colluding with their competitors against them? Get a grip. Being evicted means you take your stuff and get out, and all that equipment is theirs.

Michael Nord

Nab…you have a point. However, i think we all know that the equipment left in place is worth a lot more than the scorched earth tactic. I know that emotions run high in these situations, but now is the time to let new people negotiate a transfer. If vail paid them millions to not do this it would be in the interest of all involved. I’m not talking charity. To deny this would be an act of vengeance.

jrb

The key bit of information I’m missing in all of this is what offer Talisker/Vail has made to Powdr for: 1.) drawing up a new lease at current market rate, or 2.) Vail/Powdr buying/leasing the Powdr assets in place at PCMR. Can anyone share that information?

David joined The Denver Post in 1999, his second go-round in the Mile High City. Since then he’s covered a variety of topics – from human services to consumer affairs – most always with an investigative bent. Currently he does investigations and banking.